receiving several letters from his insurer, it became clear to him that the president was being misleading when he said "if you like the plan you have" -- "if you like the plan you have, you can keep it." that's because he found out that his policy, which came into effect just two months after the law's arbitrary cutoff date for grandfathered plans, will be discontinued next year. and he's not happy about this at all. especially given the fact that a plan on the obamacare exchanges will dramatically drive up his insurance costs from $400 a month to more than $700 a month with zero subsidies available. here's what he had to say. he said my wife and i are 54. we don't need maternity care, and we don't need obamacare. well, he's right to be upset. this is simply not in keeping with the spirit of the

president's oft-repeated promise. perhaps the administration would like to tell him he should have just done a better job of keeping up with its regulatory dictates. but what about the millions who purchased their plans relying on the president's promise that they could keep them? what about the husbands and wives across kentucky who suffered when two of our largest employers had to drop spousal coverage? what about the folks who lost coverage at work? what about all the smaller paychecks and lost jobs? what about the part-time-ization of our economy? this law, mr. president, is a mess, it's a mess. as secretary sebelius has said herself yesterday, the system is not functioning. now, maybe she was referring to no more than the narrow problems with healthcare.gov, but as the

president keeps reminding us over and over again, obamacare is about more than just a web site. he's right about that. and that's why if the system is not functioning, it's just another sign that obamacare itself is simply not working. the president and his washington democrat allies understand this. that's why the white house is so eager to enroll everybody other than themselves into the exchanges. it's why they handed out a year-long delay to businesses. and that's why the washington democrats big labor allies are looking for their own special carveouts. well, what about everybody else? what about the middle class? where is their carve out? so far, washington democrats have resisted every attempt to exempt the struggling constituents that we all represent. the folks who ran this partisan bill through know it's not ready

for prime time, and they seem to want no part of it themselves. but for you out there, the middle class, it seems to be tough luck, tough luck. we have even seen some of the same folks trying to stamp out innovations that would help folks get out from under some of obamacare's more crushing burdens. that's why they have launched a crusade against small businesses who dare experiment with self-insurance and other pioneering ideas. maybe the administration doesn't like self-insurance because it represents a free market alternative to obamacare, but the fact is nearly 100 million americans are already availing themselves of it, and i'm sure most of them really like the greater flexibility and affordability it provides. so it's time these folks spent their energy working with us to look after the middle class and

to bring about the kind of reforms that will actually lower costs and that our constituents want, because they shouldn't have to wake up to news like this. florida blue is dropping 300,000 customers. hundreds of thousands of new jerseyans opened the mail last week to find their health insurance plan would no longer exist in 2014, out of existence. half of the roughly 600,000 people in my state of kentucky in the private insurance market will have their current insurance plans discontinued. 300,000 kentuckians will have their current insurance plans discontinued. this isn't fair, it's not what americans were promised, and republicans intend to keep fighting for the middle-class families suffering under this law. i hope more of our democratic colleagues will join us in this battle in the future.

mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 184. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 184, s. 815, a bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. mr. reid: mr. president, i have

a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar 184, s. 815, a bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived in this instance. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i also ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to car calendr number 357. mr. president, i ask that this nomination be confirmed en blo

bloc, -- mr. reid: mr. president, let me start over. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 357, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motion be in order, any related statements appear in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, this is a fine young man. he worked for me, did my intelligence work. he just is an outstanding person. we're so fortunate that good people like him want public service. he speaks well of everyone that is a public servant in our country. i ask unanimoui ask unanimous cn monday, may 4, at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendars numbers 328, 329. there be 30 minutes for debate

equally divided in the usual form. that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote in the order listed, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that prement bpresident obama be immy notified of the senate's action and the senate resume ledge lifb session. -- resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 224, that the substitute amendment which is at the desk is the text of 601 -- s. 601, as passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, that the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses, the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate with a ratio of 5-3, all the above with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimoui askunanimous consent e proceed to calendar number 29 -- 22. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. -- 229. the clerk: calendar 229, an act to amend the public health service act to increase the preference given in awarding certain asthma-related grants and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3302. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3302, an act to name the department of veterans affairs medical center in bay pines, florida, as the c.w. bill young department of veterans

affairs medical center. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed -- so sorry i interrupted you. i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that we now proceed to s. res. 282. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 282, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the corporation for national and community service. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 283. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 283, to constitute the majority party's

membership on certain committees for the 113th congress or until their successors are chosen. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that whether the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, november 4. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, mr. president, the senate resume consideration on the motion to proceed to s. res. -- s. 815. that at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendars number 328 and 329 urged th9 under the pres order. following that, there be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to s. 815. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: mr. president, there will be up to three roll call votes, then, on monday at 5:30 p.m. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, november 2:00 p.m. on monday, november

>> to chair lays before the senate a certificate of election to fill a vacancy created by the death of senator frank lautenberg of new jersey. their certificate to chair his advisers in the form suggested by the senate. if there's no objection, the reading of the certificate will be waved and printed in full the record. if the senator elect will not present himself to the best, the chair will administer the oath. >> bright they are.

come on up there, frank. would you please raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear the u.s. support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic? video player true faith and allegiance? do you take this without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion aul and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god? >> idea. >> congratulations, senator. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

>> senator cory booker whether due to replace frank lautenberg who died in june. also earlier today the senate, members what denomination of mel watt to become federal finance agency and patricia millett to the d.c. circuit court. there is more about that now. >> joining us from capitol hill he covers congress for cq rollcall. your article this afternoon says the nomination wars are officially back. what happened on the senate floor today? >> guest: well, what happened this afternoon is that there were two president obama's nomination, both congressman mel watt to head up the federal financing regulator as well as a federal appeals court judge for the district of colombia

circuit, who both based being blocked by the senate thanks to a republican-led filibuster of each nominee. each nominee failed to get the 60 votes required to advance with just a couple of republicans in each case voting yes on the motion to limit debate. >> host: tell us about mel watt's nomination. democratic representative from north carolina, obama figured capitol hill. how much support did it have on the president made the nomination and going into today's procedural vote? >> guest: well, there was a lot of support locally for congressman watt who will now be in the house. i believe for the foreseeable future, he has support back home, certainly support on the

left. but richard burr, the north carolina republican senator also backed the nomination of his home state colleague. but there was considerable concern among many republicans that he did not have the requisite qualifications in their view for the job. that was despite the fact that mr. watt has served much of his career in the house on the financial services committee where he is one of the senior democrats on that panel. post to your blog up store data story at rollcall.com. biden opened to filibuster changes after blocked nomination. what is possible here? senate majority leader, harry reid's, options? >> guest: in the immediate term, senator reid told myself in a couple of other reporters just after the vote is that he

is going to call up to whether d.c. circuit nominees for votes. there have been three vang can't see from that court currently. there are nominees that have now advanced through the judiciary committee for all three. it sounds like senator reid is going to call cloture votes, presumably out of all three of the nominees. and then, assuming that the republican objection remain over what they are calling for packing, although when the traditional sense, that is certainly not what it is because there are vacant seats. in any case, it looks like he's going to force votes on all of them. if everything goes the way the vote today went unmissable at,

that this will continue and we will have a nomination gandalf, a full scale with the threat of the so-called nuclear option to change the rules of a simple majority. post co. how is it that he would go that route to change the rules? >> guest: there has been great reluctance on the part of senator reid at the end of the day to go down that road. we've been close to a couple of times in recent years in the senate. we've seen a number of last-ditch effort to get around it, which thus far has been successful. most recently over the summer, we had the meeting of the senators by themselves in the old senate chamber that ultimately helped lead to an agreement. but it is tough to see, at this juncture, what the next deal looks like. because right before the first of the two votes today, actually

a little bit before that because they came before senator cory booker was sworn into the senate, senator john mccain who had been a party at the local gang of 14 got out of the judicial nominations standoff when george w. bush was meant said this was an extraordinary circumstance, which was always the exception that senators to sign onto the the gang of 14 deal allowed themselves. it's tough to see what the next deal might look like. >> host: viewers can follow on twittering reid reporting of niels lesniewski at rollcall.com. >> guest: thank you. >> the homeland security held a committee at the washington navy yard that left 13 dead. oklahoma senator tom coburn questioned witnesses and people with security clearances who also have tax problems. here's a look. >> so what is the answer?

one of the answers has to be, doing the job that we do better, one. number two, the other has to be using data that is available. you know, the form -- this form, for 20 bucks you can get 90% of the information on the internet. it's in this war. we pay 2400 bucks for a top-secret clearance. is that right? it's about what we pay. it's about $2400. >> for a top-secret, it's more than not. it's a little over 4000. >> 4000. what do we pay? >> about 262. >> for $20 come you can find out 90% of the stuff online right now. and so, the question is maybe we need to step back and say first of all come with guy way too much classified pee-wee to many people after claimants.

number two, how we do it is not utilizing data out there today that is readily available. number three is we've had a response from director clapper that they will start coordinating with the irs. most people would say that's kind of the no-brainer. i would be one of the things you want to check. it is in the forms to have you pay your taxes. it looks to me like nobody cross-reference that with the irs. nobody checked to see if the data was accurate. all that is this computer check. so i guess my question to you, and my final point is this, creating the expectation that your clearance is tentative, on the basis of you passing some type of renewal, and not knowing when that is going to be, the cia used to have random polygraph test. they don't even have random polygraph tests now. you're noticed that i can pass

any polygraph test now with two too drugs in me and you'll never know it. and so, the fact is we need to create an environment where number one, we lessen the number of people that need a clearance. we do a whole lot better clearing. and that we need to create the expectation that you'll be randomly checked to see if you still deserve to have the clearance. that is the system. the details are difficult. i'm not saying it is not typical. but how we do it and how much it cost of holding contractors accountable for doing the very job we are paying them to do doesn't seem to be happening. in my question, i would like a response from you all. how do we solve this? you all laid out where we are. but how do we solve the? we have all of these areas. you know, the form, three pages of instructions, seven pages where you live, five pages of name, 17 pages of employment,

four pages, 21 pages of foreign activity, to pages on emotional health, seven pages on police records, lebanon drug and alcohol. five pages on associations and three signature pages. i know you are reforming the form. the point is what we want to do is go for the goal. so not all of this, first of all his check from the quality assurance check. and number three -- number two with the, can we create a process that gets to the goal and not rely on the four mismatches we can add a comment authority out there, that the government already holds. i mean, are you all means that 8400 people in this country have a text edit that makes them pull verbal juice top-secret data? they've got clearances today? does that bother anybody here? that puts us at risk.

so my question is whoever wants to answer my brought commentary or at least educate me in a different lesson, i'd love to have it. >> in january 1963, the communists did something they hadn't done before. they stayed and they fought and as a result, five americans were shut down. we americans were killed. kennedy sees us on the front pages of the times and says what is going on here, i thought we were winning this war? over the course of the next several months, in fact, beginning january and february, he will hear varying reports from white house officials, state department officials and military officials. giving really contradictory evidence about the state of the military campaign in vietnam.

>> john foster dulles had recently died in the super air powered in chantilly, virginia was being built. the president announced he would be named dulles airport. for a while, when kennedy took over, he didn't want to name it after a crusty old warrior. there is pushback and paella decision was made to name it after dulles. you can still see the film clip of kennedy opening the airport with eisenhower thayer, allen dulles player. he pulls back a curtain and behind the curtain is this giant box of john foster dulles. it stands in the middle of this airport. so i went to see if i was writing this book and i couldn't find it. i started asking security guards, where's the big bust of

dulles? nobody had heard of it. finally, thanks to the washington airport authority, i was able to discover that the bus had been taken away from its place in the middle of the airport and it's now in a closed conference room opposite baggage claim number three. and i find this a wonderful metaphor for how the dulles brothers, who at one time, exercised earth shattering power and were able to make and break governments, have now been effectively forgotten and airbrushed out of our entire history. >> earlier this week, the mother

of trade by martin testified on capitol hill on stand your ground laws. we would hear how these laws have changed the legal definition of self-defense. the senate judiciary subcommittee hearing is two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> this hearing will be the subcommittee constitution civil rights and human rights will human rights will come to order. today's hearing is entitled "stand your ground" laws, civil rights and public safety implications of the expanded use of deadly force. we have a large audience in the room today. at the outset i want to note the senate rules prohibit any signs of aggravation or disapprobation, which would include outburst, clapping our demonstrations. if someone wishes to be witness to this hearing and can't attend

in this room, there's another room available, room 226 in the dirksen building. we begin by providing opening remarks and then give my ranking member, senator cruz, an opportunity before returning for witnesses. the debate over "stand your ground" laws raises fundamental questions about self-defense and the united states of america. in recent years, we've seen a dramatic increase in laws expanding the situation in which a person can legally use deadly force in response to a perceived threat. florida passed the first of this new wave of "stand your ground" laws in 2005. prior to 2005, florida law held that a person outside his home could not use deadly force and then claim self defense if the person could i safely avoided a confrontation. this quote, duty it safer to eat, closed or sought to prevent

public disputes from escalating into violence. but the gun lobby pushed to change florida's law, so people could choose someone who threatens them, without first trying to avoid a confrontation. florida wasn't the first state to adopt the "stand your ground" principle. but florida's 2005 law expanded the principle in several dramatic new ways. first, the law grants criminal and civil community for users of deadly force in "stand your ground" situations. second, it replaces a defendant's burden, approving reasonableness with a presumption of reasonableness, when the defendant shoots anyone who enters upon his home, porch or vehicle. ..

model legislation that was nearly identical to florida's love. they then began promoting it in statehouses across the country. within a year or 13 more states passed similar laws. today, 25 states not counting florida have passed a law based in whole or in part on the alec model. alex called the enactment of these laws one of quote alec's successes" meant.

cnn described alec as being behind the spread of the laws be "the wall street journal" said alec was a key advocate for them. now that alec style "stand your ground" law's are in effect for over half the night states we are seeing their national impact when it comes to public safety and civil rights. this is what we will learn from our witnesses today. be "stand your ground" law's have led to increases in homicides and firearm injuries including 600 additional homicides per year, with no deterrent effect on crimes like robbery or assault. this point was made in several studies including recent research from texas a&m university. second, these "stand your ground" law's have allowed shooters to walk free in shocking situations. shootouts between rival drug gangs, drug deals gone bad and

more. this point will be made effectively by the testimony of david levine president and ceo of the association of prosecuting attorneys. third, in some devastating cases the laws have emboldened those who carry guns to initiate confrontations which have ended up killing unarmed children. the testimonies of sybrina fulton and lucy macbeth about the devastating losses that their sons make that point more effectively than i ever could. finally, these "stand your ground" law's increase racial disparity in our criminal justice system. one study found that in stand your ground states nearly 17% of homicides involving white shooters and black victims were ruled justified. compared to 1% of homicides with

black shooters and white pic thumbs at my request the congressional research service analyzed fbi data on justifiable homicide before and after the 2000 waive of "stand your ground" law's and found that racial disparities clearly increased and i'll be putting the crs menu in there -- it's time for "stand your ground" law's to be reviewed and reconsidered. whatever the motivation behind it it's clear these laws often go too far in encouraging confrontations that escalate into deadly violence. they are resulting in unnecessary tragedies and they are diminishing accountability under our justice system. i am pleased that the efforts to reconsider these laws are now underway. earlier this month one of the legislators who drafted florida's law joined with some

of its chief opponents in a bipartisan effort to change the law. they have been passed in the state senate committee in florida. there is more that needs to be done but we seem to be moving past the question of whether "stand your ground" law should be fixed and now we should be looking at the best way to fix x it. i urge other states that have "stand your ground" law's to revisit them as well. to the extent the "stand your ground" law's were passed based on the alec model the few who are connected with alec up here wedded to that model today. i reached out to every company and organization that has been public league listed as a member or sponsor of alec since 2005 simply asking them to you support the "stand your ground" law? 140 of them responded. only one said yes. even alec through a connecticut state representative and is chairman mr. piscopo made a

statement to the press that alec no longer has a policy on "stand your ground" law's. it's also important that congress review of "stand your ground" law because of the way proposed federal legislation implicates those laws. just this past april, 57 senators voted for a gun lobby amendment that would allow a person to receive the concealed carry permit in one state to carry his gun in every state. even if the person would be disqualified from getting a permit in the other states because of criminal convictions inadequate training or other factors. congress should think carefully about how proposals like this would mix withstand your ground law's. today we have before us a distinguished lineup of witnesses who will talk about the impact of "stand your ground" law's on public the civil rights and american families and ways that we should

work to fix them. i look forward to their testimony and i now recognize the ranking republican member senators cruz. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses who have come this morning and thank you to everyone who has come to join this hearing on a very important topic. i would like to talk about three different issues concerning "stand your ground" law chifley in. the first is the difference between serious efforts to stop violent crime and efforts to advance a political agenda. i have spent much of my adult life working in law enforcement and emphatically agree that law enforcement should the figure is in going after violent crime and protecting the innocent and protecting those that are preyed upon. indeed one of my most significant criticisms of this administration's enforcement of justice is that they have not made prosecuting gun crimes a

priority. in 2010, over 48,000 fugitives, felons and other hit but it purchasers attempted to illegally purchase a firearm and yet out of over 48,000 this administration prosecuted only 44 of them. in my view that is utterly indefensible. if you have felons and fugitives attempting to purchase illegal firearms we should be going after investigating and prosecuting each of those cases. let me reiterate. out of over 48,000 this justice department prosecuted only 44. likewise the prosecution of violent gun crimes has dropped significantly from a high of over 11,000 in 2004 to a low in 201,207,70074 which is a 29%

decline. if we were to put action to all of the rhetoric about stopping violent crime we would again put priorities to prosecuting those who commit crimes with guns. unfortunately there are many in washington who seem more driven by the dancing a political agenda than actually putting in place commonsense steps to stop violent crime. and that leads to the second i wanted to make which is that in our federalist system criminal law is primarily given to the states to enforce and the state's self defense law is not in our constitutional system the responsibility of the federal government. the federal government doesn't have the jurisdiction and doesn't have the constitutional authority to determine what the substantive criminal law should be in each of our 50 states and indeed it's fitting with the founders designed each of those 50 states would make different

judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. so that does raise the question as to the purpose of this hearing. if it is not within congress's jurisdiction to legislate substantive criminal law it raises whether there may perhaps be a broader political agenda behind the hearing instead. the third i would make is that self-defense is a red rock of every american and i would note this is not a new concept. indeed the u.s. supreme court in district of columbia versus heller stated the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the 2nd amendment rights. now some who get their news from the modern news media may believe that was a new creation of the modern core and i would

note that idea has been around from the founding of this nation indeed justice harlan with a unanimous supreme court in 1895 stated the following. quote he was not obliged to retreat nor consider whether he could safely retreat but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack on him with a deadly weapon with such force as it are all the circumstances he at the moment honestly believed and had reasonable grounds to believe was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury. the declaration of independence begins with the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness given by our creator to each of us. if an individual is confronted by violent aggressor, the right of self-defense is an inherent right in each of us and the notion that critics of these laws put forth that if you are

attacked on the street by a violent attacker you are obliged to turn and run rather than to defend yourself. it's a notion that is contrary to hundreds of years of our jurisprudence and to the rights that protect all of us. i would note also the chairman suggested a racial disparity. look, the problem with violent crime in this country is enormous and tragically minority communities bear much of the cost of violent crime. minorities find themselves at times aggressors but often fit tons of violent crime and i would note in florida the data show that african-american defendants have availed themselves of the "stand your ground" law and more frequently than half -- according to press reports 55% of african-american defendants

have successfully in both the "stand your ground" law and prosecutions compared to a 53% rate in the anglo population. this is not about politicking. this is not about inflaming racial tensions although some might try to use it to do that. this is about the right of everyone to protect themselves and to protect their family and i will tell you given a choice in a confrontation between a violent aggressor attacking an innocent civilian, i for one will always always stand with the innocent civilian. we have a system of justice to determine if that is a fact in any particular circumstance but notably the "stand your ground" law and only applies when it is a violent aggressor attacking an innocent defender. if it is not the defense doesn't apply so this is a rule that only applies to protect innocent

victims from violent aggressors and i find the notion that we say if you and your family are attacked on a public street you don't have the right to defend yourself, i find that an astonishing proposition and one that i certainly hope members of the u.s. senate will not advocate. >> we turn to our first witness passel. -- panel. congressman fudge congressman luis gutierrez and congressman luis gohmert. you each have five minutes to pick a statement in a written same and will be included in the record. the first person to speak is horseman marcia fudge representing ohio currently serving her third term. congressman fudge was unanimously elected by her colleagues and serves as the chair of the congressional lot caucus 113th congress. a member of the house committee on agriculture where she is ranking member on the subcommittee of the department

operations oversight and committee on education and workforce. congressman fudge thank you for being here today and please proceed. >> thank you very much and good morning. i would just say that it's interesting that the ranking member believes in state rights and favors his position. he cannot have it both ways. the justice department is over prosecuting persons who buy guns illegally in states and if they are then they should also be over "stand your ground" law spirit like to focus on three issues that have serious implications for public safety of our country. "stand your ground" law's concealed carry laws and racial profiling on february 26, 2012 the young man lost his life. in my opinion due to racial profiling. earlier this year trayvon martin's killer george zimmerman escaped the grip of justice because of florida's concealed carry in "stand your ground" law's. or three issues i will highly today manifest themselves in too

many young men including jordan davis who was killed for playing music too loud in his car. trayvon and jordan did not ask to be martyrs. the american legal system made the martyrs. i thank sybrina fulton and -- for being here today. your strength is inspiring. i fully understand the rights to defend oneself from violence as an established principle in our legal system however "stand your ground" law's eliminate all responsibility to retreat and peacefully and. these laws quite frankly encourage individuals to use deadly force even in situations where lesser or no physical force would be appropriate. at the urging of alec and n. r. a the first "stand your ground" law was enacted in florida in 2005. since then 22 other states have enacted similar laws. the nra and alec actively lobbied states to lower the personal liability and social

responsibility for those who carry firearms. ultimately this effort fosters a wild west environment in our communities where individuals play the role of judge jury and executioner. in my home state of ohio house bill 203 would expand the concealed carry law to permit the use of lethal force wherever an individual is legally committed to be. while removing the duty to retreat. this change to current law would bring the ohio in-line with other standard ground states. proponents of "stand your ground" law's often allege that these laws deter crime however the opposite is true. according to a study by the university of texas a a&m states for "stand your ground" law's have seen an 8% increase in homicides. the enforcement of "stand your ground" law's too often rely on the decisions of those with cultural biases on whether persons life is in danger. not surprisingly these decisions have had a disparate impact on

african-americans. the urban institute's justice policy center found in standard ground states 35 .9% of shootings involving a white shooter ended black victim are found to be justified. only 3.4% of cases involving it black shooter and a white victim are considered justifiable self-defense. these number should make all of us uncomfortable mr. chairman. racial profiling continues to make innocent individuals fear system designed to protect them. under new york's unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy more than 90% of all those stopped by police for either black or latino even though these groups make up 52% of the city's population. given the underlying taint of ruechel profiling in both our culture and criminal justice system it is troubling to see more states trend towards enacting "stand your ground" law's.

the center for american progress report license to kill shows the intersection between "stand your ground" law's and state gun permitting laws. while every state has concealed carry laws they differ on eligibility requirements. there must be a strong uniform standard to allow an individual to carry a deadly weapon. we concealed carry standards combined the "stand your ground" law's and racial profiling are a recipe for danger. we in congress must continue to work with the department of justice to monitor and evaluate the impact of these three issues and until these unjust and inherently biased laws are repealed we have a responsibility to advocate and to educate. our work will not a complete until we ensure that no one has to live with the fear of death based on his race or his age or a death that is justified by the "stand your ground" law's. i look forward to the day when every american can live knowing

that the art of justice bends towards fair and unbiased laws. i yield back. >> thank you congresswoman. next up is my colleague congressman luis gutierrez. he is known as the 11th term representing the fourth congressional district chair of the congressional hispanic caucus immigration task force and leader in effort to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. in addition he serves on the house judiciary committee and the house permanent select committee on intelligence. congressman gutierrez thank you for joining us today. >> thank you chairman durbin and ranking member cruz thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. asked in my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones. ms. fulton and ms. mike that i am deeply sorry for your loss and i appreciate a presence here today. as one dad to another i said to mr. martin that i too feel your pain and thank you for being here. as a parent i was shocked by the death of trayvon martin and the

fact that no one was even arrested after it happened and unarmed teenager was pursued by an armed adult in the neighborhood where he was in the neighborhood and no one was convicted of a crime. i respect the verdict in the judicial process but a deep concerns about the expansion of self-defense laws the proliferation of guns the weakening of gun laws and how this affects public safety. the case of trayvon martin like sandy hook massacre -- mr. chairman i requested hearings on this matter as member of the house judiciary committee that receive no response from the chairman. examining the "stand your ground" law's and whether they make our communities safer or less safe is critically important as part of a larger emanation of the impact of gun violence on america. sadly we lose a classroom full of kids every day to gun violence across this country and there have been no hearings in

the house so senator durbin i applaud you for your leadership and for holding this hearing are the fundamental problem is americans are so afraid of other americans that they feel they must arm themselves. the gum lobby is pursuing to reshape our laws to make this practice more socially and legally acceptable. special interest are relaxing our laws resulting in an escalation of the deadliness of these confrontations. i've never believed allowing more guns will mean less gun violence. we must confront the deadly combination on easily available guns. we must examine shoot first stand your ground laws. in 22 stade "stand your ground" law's expand the use of deadly force outside the home to anyplace you have a legal right to be. we seem to have made a decision that it is acceptable to use a weapon on another human that it failed to have a serious conversation about under what

circumstances. under shoot first laws a person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of death that justifies the reasonable use of force in many places. in some states there is immunity from civil life building criminal prosecution and even arrest. i grew up in chicago in a very different era. when scuffles broke out it was up to us to protect ourselves that no one had ar-15's back then. new concealed carry laws in shoot first laws are a recipe for more it dead sons and daughters. the gao estimated last year that approximately 8 million permits for concealed weapons were issued in the u.s.. illinois has become the 50th state to allow concealed weapons as a father and a grandfather of a 10-year-old i strongly oppose proposals to allow a national reciprocity for concealed weapons laws issued by states

with fewer safeguards than those in my own state of illinois where my grandson resides. for the safety of all of our loved ones we must take every reasonable precaution to ensure that individuals who -- are a public threat did not have easy access to weapons. legislatilegislati on is only part of the solution. in chicago we continue to develop strategies to reduce violence and target at-risk youth. teaching our kids how to resolve conflict without pulling a trigger makes more sense. instead the gun lobby is pursuing shoot first laws and claiming these laws increase murder rates. researchers at texas a&m found shoot shoot first states have an 8% increase in homicides relative to other states. translating to 600 additional parents children and friends killed every year. moreover shoot first laws exacerbate the mistrust of the

police among minority communities. there is a widespread feeling of poor and working-class communities at the police are there to protect people from them not to protect them from other people. that trust further deteriorates under shoot first laws when communities question whether racial stereotypes or biases will enter into a subjective determination that someone has a reasonable fear. when we allow people to take along to their own hands when police hesitate to make an arrest when a young person of color is killed that turn cops into immigration agents like the house judiciary committee's -- public safety suffers. engaging suffers. engage in this dialogue is a critical first step. congress should guide this discussion carefully monitor the application of these laws and watch out for racial disparities. i want to thank senator durbin for his leadership and his service to illinois and for the opportunity. last mr. chairman i would ask

stand your ground editorial in the dash be added to the record. without objection it will be an emptier testimony. thank you congressman gutierrez. our next is louise gohmert. he is in his fifth term in the house and a member of the house judiciary committee where he serves as vice chair on the subcommittee on crime terrorism and homeland security duties also member of the committee on natural resources. congressman gohmert please proceed. >> thank you chairman durbin ranking member cruz. i am before you have someone who has a heavy heart for every victim of crime especially violent crime. i come before you today as someone who has been involved in success for prosecuting murder. i have defended a man who happen to be african-american a murder

in which he was acquitted using self-defense having killed a man. i've successfully appealed appropriately and have gotten a capital murder conviction reversed in which the defendant happened to be african-american. i presided over many murder trials as a judge is achieved justice. i have reviewed murder trials on appeal so i'm somewhat familiar with the process involves with murder and assault of trials. by one and award for the lot the article i wrote and won best brief award along with others. the highest accommodation came from now senator ed markey house hearing approached me and said he wanted to pay me at

compliment. if you were ever arrested he wanted me to defend him and he said that was a complement and i took it as such. regarding the issue of self-defense as my friend senator cruz pointed out it was -- versus united states the court said was not obliged to consider whether he could safely retrieved cut was entitled to stand his ground in this concept has been around for a long time. some deal there should be a duty retreat before deadly force can be utilized for self rejection but some have found that without a duty to retreat there are fewer assaults of crimes with due deference to texas a&m. in most places a deadly weapon does not necessarily have to be present if the victim is in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. that idea of being able to stand one's ground without first

retreating has been combined as part of the law of self-defense in at least 22 states. it might also be noted that these 22 aren't necessarily states in which runaway murder rates abound as they do in some locations where self-defense is more limited and where gun control laws are the most extreme such as in washington d.c. or chicago illinois. florida and other states have used their right to be the source of police powers which were secured to them under the 10th amendment of the constitution because those powers were not delegated to the federal government and therefore were reserved to the states and the people. that is why states have a right to have their own penal codes to enact their own loss of self-defense, which laws get tweaked from time to time as necessary. in some states the doctrine of protecting one's home affords

more protection to the homeowner than in other states. in some states one may stand his ground without retreating where he is lawfully located however unless the uniform military -- the code of military justice or other federal nexus is clearly present all of this is up to the state legislatures to make these determinations as they see fit for their citizens. without a federal nexus these laws are up to individual states. the idea that states are less intelligent or less able to discern their citizens needs is a mistake for federal proportions. earlier congress authorized the spending of over 150% more than it brings in would have the nerve to tell state governments that balance their budget every year that the state does not know how to properly govern the people. with only few exceptions most states are doing quite well with legislating in criminal law without our interference.

it's only the federal government has an estimated 5000 or so criminal laws that have over criminalized this country. hopefully when i am here again for a hearing weekend fervently work toward eliminating or correcting the thousands of federal laws that have sometimes put people behind bars for things that most americans have no clue would be against the criminal law. so senators i humbly implore you let's leave state criminal law to the consideration of the state legislatures though we in congress will probably be well served to take advice from the states that are still solvent. thank you. >> thank you congressman gohmert and i want to thank your college scholars from the tear is in congressman fudge for their testimony as well. we appreciate your being here today and we are going to proceed to the second panel as you depart. thank you again.